I have an opinion about two different meet scenarios.
1. Winning the conference or winning the district,
(I will go with winning the conference meet)
2. Winning the state meet or qualifying for the Nike
XC National Meet,
(I will go with winning the state meet)

In 2007 we won the state meet and garnered an at-large
berth to Portland, OR, where we finished 12th. I have had
several of those athletes come back and speak to our teams
over the past several years. All of them talked about winning
the state meet more than they talked about going to the national
meet. You may find that surprising, but I feel the same way.
Being on the podium at Scioto Downs and having that first place trophy handed to the team was more satisfying than that phone call on a Sunday
night saying that we had been selected by the Nike committee for
the national meet.

I don't think anyone with a state caliber team intentionally "tanks" a conference meet, but in the build-up to post season, the workout schedule may still be pretty tough the week of conference. A state caliber team is certainly not peaking for conference, that's just suicide and not in the best interest of the program. And passing judgement on the effort of other teams is dicey at best, since you have no idea what is going on within that team. Sure, you want to win conference, but not at the expense of not having your team ready for regionals and state.

***I ran two other meets but I don't remember when they were. I believe one was the third week on the Thursday at Western Reserve Academy. I ran another race at Wal$h Jesuit that was a weekday meet that I think would have been the Thursday of the 5th week.

I can't remember when the regular season was extended to 8 weekends. Going by my school's past schedules, it was after '98 but no later than '02.

If my math is correct, I had the privilege of racing 15 5ks in a span of 55 days. No wonder my season best occurred during the 2nd week. Haha. My coach never told me to take it easy on any of them, but I'm pretty sure I tanked a few at the end of the season because I knew I didn't have it.

It has been so long I can’t remember what races I actually ran. But, I do know we ran a dual meet every Tuesday or Wednesday. Then a Saturday meet up until the districts. Let’s see Forest Hill Meet, Bowling Green Relay, Ashland Relay, East Senate, Senate, ...I don’t remember the others..but, those Relay meets actually we’re 7 different races with accumulative times or places to determine the winning team.

The odd thing is that I don't remember not racing on Saturdays, but there are some open Saturdays on the Schedule. This was from the Football Program, so it was probably printed early before we had the schedule set. I remember 2 other races, but not sure if they were from other years. I ran hard every meet and Monday and Wednesday practices were usually intervals and hill workouts. Fridays were easy.

Out of curiosity, I looked up some schedules of teams that I know usually put zero effort into their league meet. One has only run varsity runners in 5 meets and not all varsity runners have run all 5. I also looked at some individual runners from those same teams what they have done over the years. Some will have run less races in a 4 year career than Mr. Slippery or I did in a single season. Some will have run less races in 4 years than some Woodridge kids do now in a little over one season. And that is if they qualify all the way to the state meet. How do you learn to race with that few races?

I found an old schedule of mine from 1983. Wow, I had no idea it was such a short season. I ran at least 12 races in 6 weeks and then Sectional, District and State.

So different now than then. From my alma mater's archived results from 42(!) years ago (my senior year), we were scheduled for 15 races. The top 7 raced a total of 11 times in 47 days, including the state meet. I checked to see how many races my kid ran in his senior XC season in 2014. It was 8 including the state meet, in 65 days.

It has been so long I can’t remember what races I actually ran. But, I do know we ran a dual meet every Tuesday or Wednesday. Then a Saturday meet up until the districts. Let’s see Forest Hill Meet, Bowling Green Relay, Ashland Relay, East Senate, Senate, ...I don’t remember the others..but, those Relay meets actually we’re 7 different races with accumulative times or places to determine the winning team.

Canton McKinley hosted a relay XC meet at Malone College back in the late '70s when the races were 2.5 miles long. The meet was run in 3 separate races. The teams' #s 5-7 ran in the 1st race, the #s 3 and 4 runners were in the 2nd race, and the #1s and #2s ran in the last race. The aggregate of the teams' top 5 finishers determined the final standings.

My school attended the Bowling Green U. Invitational in the late '60s (in those days, most invites were hosted by colleges). At that meet, team placings were determined by the average time of the top 5 finishers.

Other historical nuggets I have come across during time spent at the library:

Prior to 1971, teams were only allowed to run 10 regular season meets. To get around that, teams would run a lot of 4, 5, and 6-team meets. In the southern part of the NE District, Goodyear Park hosted a lot of these meets involving Summit County schools, and Malone College hosted many of the meets involving Canton area schools while Kent-Stark hosted a few as well.

Beginning in 1971, teams could run as many meets as they wanted, but individual runners could only run 2 meets a week.

Here's an even more goofy situation not pertaining to number of meets:
In 1978, the 6th runner tiebreaker was introduced. At the AAA District meet, GlenOak tied with Euclid for the 9th and final state spot (the NE had a large portion of the big schools back then). Both teams left the meet thinking they had advanced to state. The tie was broken by the OHSAA the day after the meet. Euclid won the tiebreaker. After determining which team won the tiebreaker and going back through the results, 3 GlenOak runners made state individually which knocked out 3 kids from other schools who originally thought they had qualified individually. How bad might that have felt to be one of those individuals who didn't find out until the next day that they didn't qualify?

So different now than then. From my alma mater's archived results from 42(!) years ago (my senior year), we were scheduled for 15 races. The top 7 raced a total of 11 times in 47 days, including the state meet. I checked to see how many races my kid ran in his senior XC season in 2014. It was 8 including the state meet, in 65 days.

The other difference from 42 years ago is max race distance was 2 miles back then.

The schedule I posted was my heaviest season of racing. By year, I raced:
Fr: 14 races in 56 days.
So: 15 races in 55 days.
Jr: 13 races in 55 days (can't remember if I ran the district open race that year, so I'm not counting it).
Sr: 12 races in 56 days.
Total - 54 races. All were 5ks.

I was never a varsity runner. My total likely would've been the same or lower. Although the varsity would get the 2 extra races of regional and state (they made state my last 3 years), they did not have to run a few of the weekday meets.

I think psychodad makes a valid point, that kids need to race in order to learn how to race. Furthermore, kids want to run races and for most kids there will never be a regional or state meet experience. In my opinion, four or five races in a season is not enough for a high schooler. I also think if we raced that little we would get a lot fewer kids out for the sport. If our runners stay healthy and run for four years, they will likely run 8-12 races per year depending on how deeply they go into the post season. Our non-freshman varsity runners usually take one or two weekends off from racing. Otherwise we run a Monday two mile race to kick off the season and then have meets every Saturday.

I also think that XC schedules like the ones that a lot of us had when we competed in the 70s and 80s were clearly not optimal. Two or three races per week either crowd out training or tend to leave you burned out. This doesn't mean that some people won't have good performances. There is a natural tendency to assume that our successes are because of and not in spite of what we did leading up the successes. And running a race is generally a net benefit to fitness, but also generally not optimal. I think that is manifestly clear if you look at track and field times. Athletes today are clearly faster than athletes were in the 70s and 80s. There is absolutely no question. Yes, there were a few really exceptional athletes from "back in the day" who were as fast as the fast kids today. But track times clearly show that athletes today are faster. So unless we are willing to admit that kids today are just a whole lot healthier and mentally tougher than we were, we pretty much have to conclude that more coaches know what they are doing now than used to be the case.

There are a lot more kids participating. That helps. Training is a lot better. Better equipment. Kids are bigger and stronger to begin with. Kids focus on CC and track more than they did in the 70's and 80's. When my brothers and I ran at Woodridge, the CC team was made up of Wrestlers and Basketball players. We were nearly all multi sport athletes. Now, it's a complete opposite situation. I did a couple sit ups once in a while. The kids do core every day. Proper warm up and stretching. Much better diets. I sort of can't believe we ran as well as we did. Just access to information. I had little to no knowledge of what other people were running. Now, you can't not know.

Just training shoes alone are so much improved. Heck, Uniforms and training gear are so much better. Training year round is much improved. In track, half my season was wasted training and racing on cinder tracks that were under water. Our kids get a full months head start on us easily from when I ran. The worst track we run on now is better than the best track we ran on back then. I would expect runners to be faster now. Evolution.

I laugh because I would be considered a slacker compared to how the kids train now. They get after it.

Still, I do not understand how not racing one week before the district meet helps anything. Where is the proof?

As a coach, I would love to take credit for part of the increased depth, but I'm not sure better coaching is at the heart of the increased depth.

My gut is telling me the internet has changed expectations and the definition of what it means to be "fast"

When our world essentially consisted of what was reported in the local newspaper, being fast would mean winning medals in the local invitational. Now with sites like milesplit and a wide variety of social media sites the kids use, the definition of fast has changed and with it the expectations of the top end - those that give depth to any list.

Furthermore, because of all these things these kids are also far more knowledgable about training and what to do in the offseason, as are their parents.

I believe coaches are an important piece of the puzzle, but I'm not convinced better coaching is the most important piece in explaining the increased depth.

I think psychodad makes a valid point, that kids need to race in order to learn how to race. Furthermore, kids want to run races and for most kids there will never be a regional or state meet experience. In my opinion, four or five races in a season is not enough for a high schooler. I also think if we raced that little we would get a lot fewer kids out for the sport. If our runners stay healthy and run for four years, they will likely run 8-12 races per year depending on how deeply they go into the post season. Our non-freshman varsity runners usually take one or two weekends off from racing. Otherwise we run a Monday two mile race to kick off the season and then have meets every Saturday.

Agreed on the point about racing. We went through a 3-week period last spring when we did not have a dual meet for track. While many of the younger and slower kids did some good work in practice, they were definitely rusty when they finally had the opportunity to race again, and all that good training didn't amount to much. We were able to salvage a few season bests a few days later when we found a way to give each of them 1 race at our season-ending relay meet.

I'm not sure if our numbers would increase or decrease if we ran less meets. I'm amazed at how many kids initially tell me that they want to run practices but don't want to run meets. Many are intimidated by track meets because there's nowhere to hide if you're really slow or unprepared. They find it's easier to hide in an XC race where there are more competitors on the course. They want to participate (or their parents are making them participate), but they don't want to compete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathking

I also think that XC schedules like the ones that a lot of us had when we competed in the 70s and 80s were clearly not optimal. Two or three races per week either crowd out training or tend to leave you burned out. This doesn't mean that some people won't have good performances. There is a natural tendency to assume that our successes are because of and not in spite of what we did leading up the successes. And running a race is generally a net benefit to fitness, but also generally not optimal. I think that is manifestly clear if you look at track and field times. Athletes today are clearly faster than athletes were in the 70s and 80s. There is absolutely no question. Yes, there were a few really exceptional athletes from "back in the day" who were as fast as the fast kids today. But track times clearly show that athletes today are faster. So unless we are willing to admit that kids today are just a whole lot healthier and mentally tougher than we were, we pretty much have to conclude that more coaches know what they are doing now than used to be the case.

I believe there's a greater abundance of good coaching out there these days, and it's not limited to the more populous areas or a few select rural schools (ex. Caldwell). I don't know how many times I've had people who ran in the '70s and '80s tell me about their out of shape XC or track coach who would ride a bike or drive their car alongside them telling them to run faster while blowing cigarette smoke in their general direction. At our school, we went through 7 different XC coaches in the '70s. The 1st guy did all the same stuff that the coaches of the top programs were doing back then (high mileage). Once he got the program up and running, he produced a county championship team, an individual county champion (who would also make state), and a sectional/district championship team - all 3 accomplishments came in different years. He eventually grew tired of the administration's cheapness (wouldn't buy them new uniforms or give them adequate meal money for far away meets) and left. His replacement was less knowledgeable, but the older runners knew what to do from their experience with the previous coach and were able to win the county meet that coach's 1st year. That coach lasted 2 years (got re-married but never had his 1st marriage annulled which is a "no-no"at a Catholic school). After that, we had 4 different coaches in 4 years before closing out the decade with 1 that lasted just 2 years. The AD would just assign a coach when the school year began. The program got progressively worse from '72 until '81 when they finally got a coach to stick around for about 7 years. I think today's coaches are better at taking marginally talented kids and getting them to be contributors. Not everyone has the goods to run in the 15s and low 16s, but I think coaching is helping more kids who have high 16s and 17s talent become high 16s and 17s performers.

Agreed on the point about racing. We went through a 3-week period last spring when we did not have a dual meet for track. While many of the younger and slower kids did some good work in practice, they were definitely rusty when they finally had the opportunity to race again, and all that good training didn't amount to much. We were able to salvage a few season bests a few days later when we found a way to give each of them 1 race at our season-ending relay meet.

I'm not sure if our numbers would increase or decrease if we ran less meets. I'm amazed at how many kids initially tell me that they want to run practices but don't want to run meets. Many are intimidated by track meets because there's nowhere to hide if you're really slow or unprepared. They find it's easier to hide in an XC race where there are more competitors on the course. They want to participate (or their parents are making them participate), but they don't want to compete.

I believe there's a greater abundance of good coaching out there these days, and it's not limited to the more populous areas or a few select rural schools (ex. Caldwell). I don't know how many times I've had people who ran in the '70s and '80s tell me about their out of shape XC or track coach who would ride a bike or drive their car alongside them telling them to run faster while blowing cigarette smoke in their general direction. At our school, we went through 7 different XC coaches in the '70s. The 1st guy did all the same stuff that the coaches of the top programs were doing back then (high mileage). Once he got the program up and running, he produced a county championship team, an individual county champion (who would also make state), and a sectional/district championship team - all 3 accomplishments came in different years. He eventually grew tired of the administration's cheapness (wouldn't buy them new uniforms or give them adequate meal money for far away meets) and left. His replacement was less knowledgeable, but the older runners knew what to do from their experience with the previous coach and were able to win the county meet that coach's 1st year. That coach lasted 2 years (got re-married but never had his 1st marriage annulled which is a "no-no"at a Catholic school). After that, we had 4 different coaches in 4 years before closing out the decade with 1 that lasted just 2 years. The AD would just assign a coach when the school year began. The program got progressively worse from '72 until '81 when they finally got a coach to stick around for about 7 years. I think today's coaches are better at taking marginally talented kids and getting them to be contributors. Not everyone has the goods to run in the 15s and low 16s, but I think coaching is helping more kids who have high 16s and 17s talent become high 16s and 17s performers.

I agree that some of my XC kids would be happy with fewer races. My daughter might have run XC, and certainly would have stayed with swimming, if she could have just practiced. (On the other hand, she never would have taken up diving then.) But I think that we would lose (net) 15-20 from the boys team and close to that from the girls team if they only got 4 or 5 races in the season. Most of our kids ran XC in middle school and they enjoy chasing PRs and running through mud. Then again, we might get more kids chasing PE credit if they didn't have to run races.

I totally hear you about the number of coaches who didn't know what they were doing. A coach friend of mine has told me that back in the 80s and 90s he generally felt like he could defeat most coaches most years because he knew a lot more than they did about training, but now that isn't the case.

If I was in school now and we did not run at least every Saturday, I would play soccer and tell the CC coach that I'd help out if he wanted me to at championship time. I would not go out for a sport where training became more important than competing. I loved to race not train.

If I was in school now and we did not run at least every Saturday, I would play soccer and tell the CC coach that I'd help out if he wanted me to at championship time. I would not go out for a sport where training became more important than competing. I loved to race not train.

I agree about there being more art than science. Along those lines, I believe I can artistically decide that my varsity runners might need a week off from racing once or twice in what has, for many, become a 12+ week racing season.

However, the conference meet should NOT be one of those in my artistic opinion, unless it's due to injury.

If I was in school now and we did not run at least every Saturday, I would play soccer and tell the CC coach that I'd help out if he wanted me to at championship time. I would not go out for a sport where training became more important than competing. I loved to race not train.

People can still be good at art and bad at art. Just like science. I agree that I would not want to run XC if we only ran five times a season. On the other hand, I would probably be fine with taking one weekend off a season.

Yeah, I'm not saying a week off here or there is bad for some kids. My children would not have wanted a week off. My gripe is that there is an obligation to the conference and to the rest of the team to do your best. My youngest is not as good a runner as his brother and sister. He loves cross country though. He loves that it's all one big team doing the same thing. The compartmentalization of track and field does not appeal to him as much. I think it's good to teach the kids that being a part of a conference is something that comes with responsibilities. No one would feel good if all the other teams in a school just tanked the league. Cross Country is not so special that it should be allowed to.

Like ENA said. If your looking to come in 3rd or 4th place regardless, you make certain decisions. If you have the team to legitimately challenge for a title, you do it. You do not sit your entire varsity without injuries.

No one would tolerate a parent telling the coach that their kid is only going to run in this race and that race and will not do the same workouts as the team. They might do Tuesday's workouts, but none of the others. Howard would tell them that he hopes it works out for them at CVCA or $V$M.

I completely agree about league/conference titles. You should always do your best on that day. Our kids want to run well there. This past Saturday was decidedly not a good day. And the kids, even the ones who had run well personally, were decidedly not happy about it. We have plenty of years when we were not tapered or adjusting training for the OCC meet, but those are years when we believe we have a reasonable chance to do well at the state meet. So we have mostly won the OCC meet those years. Our basic philosophy is always "Try to win the OCC meet and try to get to the state meet." (And once in a while it's also "Try to win the state meet.") And it would be very hard for an XC coach to get fired here, but sitting a healthy varsity team would probably do it.

Not win the National title, but just qualify? You would rather not win a state championship and then not win a National title. You win the race you have in front of you at the time, not the one a week or two away.

It's not even close. You want to win the state title and then you want the opportunity to qualify to the National meet. If you have a team good enough to qualify to the National meet, you certainly have the team to win a state championship. Some teams that win a state title aren't built to qualify to a National meet. It's one step at a time.

I don't think it's even close for me. I would absolutely take winning a state title over qualifying for NXN.

When we go to the district meet, we want to win, but in general we tell kids to focus on qualifying on. The same is true at the regional. When we get to the state meet we have them race like there is no next week. In 2011, when we won the state meet, we barely beat Liberty at the district, 58-61 I believe. Then they beat us at the regional 91-100. We ran both of those races with a "run well enough to get us to the next level" attitude. Our top two had off days, but did what we asked by being in individual qualifying position. That team felt no need to go to any post season meets.

Our basic philosophy is always "Try to win the OCC meet and try to get to the state meet." (And once in a while it's also "Try to win the state meet.") And it would be very hard for an XC coach to get fired here, but sitting a healthy varsity team would probably do it.

I will say that the coach who I think is most in question and therefore why the thread was started in the first place is a great guy and a pretty dang good coach. I think he may be a little wrongheaded in his decision to sit the whole varsity, or nearly, in the conference meet though.